{"id":375421,"date":"2026-02-11T13:30:13","date_gmt":"2026-02-11T08:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=375421"},"modified":"2026-02-12T16:29:36","modified_gmt":"2026-02-12T10:59:36","slug":"del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi HC resolves “Kerly Impasse” in ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> While hearing a batch of intra-court appeals and connected commercial matters arising from long-standing trademark disputes regarding competing claims of statutory trademark rights and common-law goodwill in respect of the mark FIELDMARSHAL, the Division Bench of *C. Hari Shankar, J<\/span> and Om Prakash Shukla, J, held that the mere fact of registration cannot defeat an action for passing off. The Court stated that an injunction may be issued against the registered proprietor where the plaintiff establishes prior goodwill through sustained and uninterrupted use.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

Jain Industries was the original registered proprietor of the mark ‘FIELD MARSHAL’ in Class 7 in respect of centrifugal pumps, with registration dating back to 1965. However, it was undisputed that Jain Industries never commercially used the mark for centrifugal pumps or any allied goods at any point in time.<\/p>\n

PM Diesels Pvt. Ltd. (‘PMD’), on the other hand, had commenced the use of the mark ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ in relation to diesel engines as early as the 1960s. Over time, PM Diesels had expanded the use of the mark to centrifugal pumps, starting from the mid-1970s. The mark came to be extensively used, advertised and commercially exploited by PM Diesels, resulting in significant goodwill and market recognition, particularly in rural and semi-urban markets.<\/p>\n

In 1986, Jain Industries had assigned its registered trademark ‘FIELD MARSHAL’ to Thukral Mechanical Works. Following the assignment, Thukral Mechanical Works had begun the commercial use of the mark in relation to centrifugal pumps in or around 1988. This had led to multiple rounds of litigation between the parties, including suits for infringement and passing off, rectification proceedings seeking removal of the registration on the ground of non-use, and writ petitions challenging decisions of trademark authorities.<\/p>\n

Earlier proceedings had culminated in a judgment of Thukral Mechanical Works<\/span> v. PM Diesels<\/span>, (2009) 2 SCC 768<\/a><\/span>, wherein the Supreme Court had held that PM Diesels’ use of the mark infringed the statutory registration held by Jain Industries. However, the Supreme Court had expressly left open the issue of passing off and prior user rights.<\/p>\n

The present proceedings before the Court arose from a consolidated judgment of the Single Judge adjudicating infringement suits, passing off claims, rectification petitions and related challenges, which was carried in appeal before the Division Bench.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether a registered proprietor or its assignee, who had never commercially used the trademark, could restrain another party that had acquired goodwill through prior and continuous use of the mark, on the basis of passing off.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether diesel engines and centrifugal pumps constitute allied and cognate goods, such that use of an identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to one would result in actionable confusion in respect of the other.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether assignment of a registered trademark by a proprietor who had not used the mark could confer enforceable goodwill upon the assignee so as to defeat the prior user’s claim.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Whether rectification of the trademark register on the ground of non-use could be sustained in proceedings where the original registrant had not been impleaded.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    How competing claims of statutory infringement and common-law passing off were to be reconciled in a situation where both parties asserted legally cognisable but conflicting rights.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Analysis, Law and Decision<\/h3>\n

    The Court held that the statutory framework of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘Act’) itself recognises and preserves the supremacy of prior user rights over registration. The Court placed primary reliance on Section 27(2)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, which expressly saves the common-law remedy of passing off notwithstanding registration, and observed that the provision makes it clear that no person acquires immunity against passing off merely by securing registration of a mark. The Court further relied on Section 34, which protects the rights of a prior user against a registered proprietor, holding that registration cannot interfere with the use of a trademark by a person who has been continuously using it from a date prior to either the use or registration by the proprietor.<\/p>\n

    Applying these provisions, the Court held that PMD had established long, continuous and bona fide use of the mark ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ commencing in the 1960s, much prior to any actual commercial use by Jain Industries or its assignee. Such use, the Court held, resulted in accrual of substantial goodwill and reputation in the market, which constitutes a proprietary right enforceable through an action for passing off. The Court reiterated that goodwill is generated by trade and customer association, not by statutory registration, and that it is this goodwill which passing off law seeks to protect.<\/p>\n

    The Court examined the interplay between Section 28<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, which confers exclusive rights upon a registered proprietor, and Sections 27(2)<\/a> and 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, and held that Section 28<\/a> of the Act<\/a> must be read subject to the express statutory preservation of prior user rights. The exclusivity conferred by registration was therefore held not to be absolute, but conditional upon absence of superior prior user claims. The Court held that statutory infringement and passing off are conceptually distinct causes of action, governed by different legal tests, and that success in one does not preclude success in the other.<\/p>\n

    On this basis, the Court recognised the present case as a classic example of what is described in Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names<\/span> as the ‘Kerly impasse’, namely a situation where the registered proprietor may succeed in an infringement action under Section 29<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, while the prior user succeeds in a passing off action by virtue of earlier goodwill. The Court held that Indian trademark law, particularly through Sections 27(2)<\/a> and 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, consciously accommodates such coexistence.<\/p>\n

    Addressing the nature of the goods, the Court held that diesel engines and centrifugal pumps constitute allied and cognate goods, applying settled principles governing likelihood of confusion. The Court noted that both goods are used together, sold through overlapping trade channels, cater to the same class of consumers, and are functionally complementary. Consequently, use of an identical mark in relation to such goods was held to satisfy the misrepresentation element of passing off, with a real likelihood of consumer deception and diversion of trade.<\/p>\n

    On the issue of assignment, the Court examined Sections 37<\/a> and 38<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, which recognise the assignability of registered trademarks. However, the Court held that assignment of a mark does not automatically carry with it goodwill unless such goodwill exists in the hands of the assignor. Since Jain Industries had never used the mark ‘FIELD MARSHAL’ in commerce, it had not acquired any goodwill capable of being transferred. The Court held that an assignee cannot be placed in a better position than the assignor, and that assignment of a ‘bare mark’ without goodwill cannot defeat the superior rights of a prior user in a passing off action.<\/p>\n

    With respect to rectification proceedings, the Court examined the plea of non-use under the statutory scheme governing removal of marks for non-use. The Court held that allegations of non-use are intrinsically tied to the conduct of the registered proprietor and require adjudication with the registrant before the Court. In the absence of impleadment of the original registrant, rectification on the ground of non-use was held to be procedurally untenable and contrary to principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n

    Reconciling the competing claims, the Court held that relief must be moulded in accordance with the nature of the rights established. While the registration continued to subsist, the superior goodwill and prior user rights of PM Diesels entitled it to protection against passing off. The Court therefore upheld the injunction restraining the registered proprietor and its assignee from representing their goods in a manner calculated to deceive or cause confusion with the goods of the prior user.<\/p>\n

    The Court concluded by reaffirming that the Act embodies a deliberate balance between statutory monopoly and commercial honesty, and that the Register cannot be used as an instrument to defeat long-standing, bona fide trade practices grounded in prior use and accrued goodwill.<\/p>\n

    [Thukral Mechanial Works v. PM Diesel Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 445<\/a>, decided on 6-2-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment Authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

    For the Appellant:<\/span> Hemant Singh, Sachin Gupta, Rohit Pradhan, Ajay, Prashansa Singh, Adarsh, Mahima Chanchalani, Advocates<\/p>\n

    For the Respondent:<\/span> N. Mahabir, P.C. Arya, Noopur Biswas, Udit Gupta, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “A textbook case of the ‘Kerly impasse’ where infringement and passing off coexist as concurrent causes of action”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67539,"featured_media":375432,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[98634,98635,98630,98632,98631,98633],"class_list":["post-375421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-allied-and-cognate-goods","tag-field-marshal-trademark-dispute","tag-kerly-impasse","tag-passing-off-despite-registration","tag-prior-user-v-registered-proprietor","tag-trademark-non-use-rectification"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC on Kerly Impasse: prior user v. registered trademark rights | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court explains the Kerly impasse, holding that a prior user with goodwill can succeed in passing off against a registered proprietor who never used the trademark, even where infringement technically exists.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi HC resolves "Kerly Impasse" in 'FIELDMARSHAL' Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court explains the Kerly impasse, holding that a prior user with goodwill can succeed in passing off against a registered proprietor who never used the trademark, even where infringement technically exists.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-11T08:00:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-12T10:59:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Delhi HC resolves "Kerly Impasse" in 'FIELDMARSHAL' Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Prarthana Gupta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi HC resolves “Kerly Impasse” in ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-11T08:00:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-12T10:59:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1379,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"allied and cognate goods\",\"FIELD MARSHAL trademark dispute\",\"Kerly impasse\",\"passing off despite registration\",\"prior user v. registered proprietor\",\"trademark non-use rectification\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC on Kerly Impasse: prior user v. registered trademark rights | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-11T08:00:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-12T10:59:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court explains the Kerly impasse, holding that a prior user with goodwill can succeed in passing off against a registered proprietor who never used the trademark, even where infringement technically exists.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"passing off action against registered proprietor\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/11\\\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi HC resolves “Kerly Impasse” in ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\",\"name\":\"Prarthana Gupta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Prarthana Gupta\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/prarthana\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC on Kerly Impasse: prior user v. registered trademark rights | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court explains the Kerly impasse, holding that a prior user with goodwill can succeed in passing off against a registered proprietor who never used the trademark, even where infringement technically exists.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi HC resolves \"Kerly Impasse\" in 'FIELDMARSHAL' Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration","og_description":"Delhi High Court explains the Kerly impasse, holding that a prior user with goodwill can succeed in passing off against a registered proprietor who never used the trademark, even where infringement technically exists.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-11T08:00:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-12T10:59:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prarthana Gupta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Delhi HC resolves \"Kerly Impasse\" in 'FIELDMARSHAL' Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prarthana Gupta","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/"},"author":{"name":"Prarthana Gupta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382"},"headline":"Delhi HC resolves “Kerly Impasse” in ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration","datePublished":"2026-02-11T08:00:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-12T10:59:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/"},"wordCount":1379,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp","keywords":["allied and cognate goods","FIELD MARSHAL trademark dispute","Kerly impasse","passing off despite registration","prior user v. registered proprietor","trademark non-use rectification"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/","name":"Del HC on Kerly Impasse: prior user v. registered trademark rights | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-11T08:00:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-12T10:59:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382"},"description":"Delhi High Court explains the Kerly impasse, holding that a prior user with goodwill can succeed in passing off against a registered proprietor who never used the trademark, even where infringement technically exists.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"passing off action against registered proprietor"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/del-hc-on-kerly-impasse-prior-user-v-registered-trademark-rights\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi HC resolves “Kerly Impasse” in ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ Trademark Dispute; holds prior user prevails over dormant registration"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382","name":"Prarthana Gupta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Prarthana Gupta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/passing-off-action-against-registered-proprietor.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":377829,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/10\/ipr-february-2026-important-high-court-judgments-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":375421,"position":0},"title":"Intellectual Property Rights February 2026 Roundup: Key High Court Judgments on Personality Rights, Copyright, Trade Mark, and More","author":"Prarthana Gupta","date":"March 10, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick legal roundup to cover important stories of February 2026 on Intellectual Property Rights from all High Courts; covering key updates on Personality Rights, Trade mark and Copyright infringement.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"IPR February 2026","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":382897,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/01\/del-hc-orders-rectification-of-ss-white-trade-mark-registration\/","url_meta":{"origin":375421,"position":1},"title":"Dishonest Adoption and Suppression of Prior Rights Vitiate Trademark Registration; Delhi HC Orders Rectification of \u2018S.S. WHITE\u2019 Mark Registration","author":"Ritu","date":"May 1, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAn applicant cannot be permitted to reap the benefit of an illegality, as any such registration would be nothing but the fruits of a poisonous tree.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"S.S. WHITE trade Mark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.S.-WHITE-trade-Mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.S.-WHITE-trade-Mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.S.-WHITE-trade-Mark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.S.-WHITE-trade-Mark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372889,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/16\/bombay-hc-protects-siyaram-trademark\/","url_meta":{"origin":375421,"position":2},"title":"Bombay High Court protects “Siyaram” trademark; restrains Dishonest use by interim injunction","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 16, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s reputation and goodwill was such that the plaintiff\u2019s tagline, \u2018Come home to Siyaram\u2019 was indelibly etched in public memory.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Siyaram trademark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Siyaram-trademark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Siyaram-trademark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Siyaram-trademark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Siyaram-trademark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":314956,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/22\/nova-v-novya-trademark-dispute-delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-in-favour-of-sterling-agro-industries\/","url_meta":{"origin":375421,"position":3},"title":"[NOVA v NOVYA Trademark Dispute] Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction in favour of Sterling Agro Industries","author":"Arunima","date":"February 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Sterling Agro Industries emerges victorious in the trademark clash between NOVA and NOVYA, as Delhi High Court decrees in their favor, enforcing a permanent injunction against the defendants and awarding litigation costs.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338932,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-favour-fmi-limited-indi-indeed-trademark-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":375421,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court upholds injunction granted in favour of FMI Limited in \u2018INDI\u2019 vs \u2018INDEED\u2019 Trademark Dispute","author":"Arunima","date":"January 13, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The lack of bona fide on the part of the defendant is also demonstrated from the fact that it has adopted an identical colour combination of \u2018blue and white\u2019, as used by the plaintiff. Pertinently, most of the measuring tapes of the defendant selling under different marks do not bear\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":183384,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/22\/bombay-hc-holds-issuance-due-notice-proprietor-renewal-registration-trademark-mandatory-requirement\/","url_meta":{"origin":375421,"position":5},"title":"Bombay HC holds issuance of due notice to proprietor for renewal of registration of trademark a mandatory requirement","author":"Saba","date":"January 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of RM Borde and RG Ketkar, JJ heard a petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, thereby prohibiting the respondent from removing the petitioner\u2019s trademark \u201cKLITOLIN\u201d from the records in their registers and a quashment of the respondent\u2019s order to remove\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=375421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375421\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/375432"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=375421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=375421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=375421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}